Text Size

-

+

reset

POLITICO 44

The opposition to further cuts by the panel’s GOP majority was so widely expected that the news conference announcing it began before the end of a hearing on the issue, which featured Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey.

Panel Democrats released their own recommendation against more defense cuts while highlighting a key difference with the Republicans — the need to balance that with tax increases.

In the hearing, Panetta, a former White House budget director and longtime House member, repeated his insistence that the supercommittee should focus on finding cuts in entitlements and raising revenues to meet its goal of saving $1.5 trillion over 10 years. He said discretionary spending already has taken “a trillion-dollar hit” from the deficit-reduction process and the Pentagon’s share of that already is “going to take us to the edge” of what can be done without harming national security.

“If you’re going to be responsible in dealing with the deficit, you have got to consider the mandatory programs and you have got to consider, obviously, revenue,” he said.

The bipartisan push by panel members against defense cuts — and Panetta’s endorsement of it — is bound to increase pressure on the supercommittee. The panel already is caught between the Democrats’ desire to protect entitlements and the Republicans’ refusal to raise taxes. If the supercommittee deadlocks, that will trigger mandatory cuts of $1.2 trillion over 10 years, half of which will come from the Pentagon.

It’s those cuts that most concern Panetta and lawmakers interested in preserving U.S. military power. Panetta has repeatedly railed against the idea since taking office in July, calling it “disastrous” to national security.

“It will badly damage our capabilities for the future. I don’t say that as scare tactics; I don’t say that as a threat. It’s a reality,” he told the Armed Services panel. On Wednesday, Panetta suggested he’d quit if the trigger takes effect, saying, “It will not happen under my watch.”

Dempsey noted that the trigger would force layoffs of battle-hardened leaders on whom the military’s future depends. “If we’re not careful with this and we have a migration of that talent out of the Army, that’s irrevocable for probably 10 or 15 years,” he said.

The start of Thursday’s hearing was interrupted several times by protesters seeking deeper defense spending cuts and an end to U.S. involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Capitol Police arrested eight people — seven charged with disruption of Congress, and the eighth with simple assault, spokeswoman Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said.

The Pentagon is reviewing U.S. strategy to decide where spending cuts can be made. Panetta and Dempsey said options are still being discussed among military service chiefs and with Obama, but one thing is clear: There will be no cuts to pay and benefits for existing service members.

That's a step in the right direction, but it's hard to use words like "transparent and accountable" in connection with the Pentagon.

About $56 billion a year goes simply to “classified programs,” or to projects known only by their code names, like “Chalk Eagle” and “Link Plumeria.” That’s the Pentagon’s black budget, which will never be transparent or accountable.

The House Armed Services Committee can go blow itself. We aren't going to continue to fork over billions to Halliburton and Blackwater so they can "lose" it in the desert. The People are tired of being stolen from.